utopia crim reviewer

8/13/2019 Utopia Crim Reviewer

1/39

THE REVISED PENAL CODE

(Act No. 3815, as amendedAN ACT REVISIN! THE PENAL CODE AND

OTHER PENAL LA"S

P#e$%m%na#%es

"HAT IS CRI&INAL LA" '

Criminal law is that branch or division of law whichdefines crimes, treats of their nature, and providesfor their punishment.

"HAT IS A CRI&E'

A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation ofa public law forbidding or commanding it.

"HAT IS THE RATIONALE OR CRI&INAL LA"'

Two theories justify criminal law: relative and

absolute. The relative theories of punishment are:(1 prevention, or to prevent the offender fromfurther offending! (" public self#defense, or theright of the $tate to repel an attac% threatening itse&istence! (' reformation! ( deterrence or to

terrify others! and () e&emplarity, penal justice islaw teaching by e&ample.

The absolute theory is that punishment is an act ofretributive justice to which reformation and e&ampleare incidental. *egel says that punishment is for the

negation of a negation, or an effort to annihilate thewrong in its effort to annihilate the right.

"HO HAS THE PO"ER TO P)NISH CRI&ES'

The $tate has the authority, under its police power,to define and punish crimes and lay down the rulesof criminal procedure (+eople v. $antiago

"HAT IS THE LI&ITATION O THE PO"ER OTHE LA"&A*IN! +OD TO ENACT PENALLE!ISLATION'

ust be general in application.

ust not parta%e of the nature of an ex

post factolaw. ust not parta%e of the nature of a bill of

attainder. ust not impose cruel and unusual

punishment or e&cessive fines.

"HAT IS AN E- POST ACTO LA"'

An e& post facto law: a%es criminal an act done before the

passage of the law and which was innocent

when done, and punishes such an act! Aggravates a crime, or ma%es it greater

than it was, when committed!

Changes the punishment and inflicts a

greater punishment than the law anne&ed

to the crime when committed! Alters the legal rules of evidence, and

authori-es conviction upon less or differenttestimony than the law reuired at the timeof the commission of the offense!

Assumes to regulate civil rights and

remedies only, in effect imposes penalty ordeprivation of a right for something which

when done was lawful! and /eprives a person accused of a crime some

lawful protection to which he has becomeentitled, such as the protection of a formerconviction or acuittal, or a proclamation ofamnesty.

"HAT IS A +ILL O ATTAINDER'

A bill of attainder is legislative act which inflictspunishment without trial. 0ts essence is thesubstitution of a legislative act for a judicialdetermination of guilt.

"HAT IS THE RATIONALE O THEPROHI+ITION A!AINST A +ILL O ATTAINDER'

The rationale is that 2o person shall beheld to answer for a criminal offense without dueprocess of law.3 ($ec. 1, Art. ', +hilippineConstitution

"HAT ARE THE CONSTIT)TIONAL RI!HTS OTHE ACC)SED'

All persons shall have the right of a speedy

disposition of their cases before all judicial,uasi#judicial, or administrative bodies.

2o person shall be held to answer for a

criminal offense without due process of law.

All persons, e&cept those charged with

offenses punishable by reclusion perpetuawhen evidence of guilt is strong, shall,before conviction, be bailable by sufficientsureties, or be released on recogni-ance asmay be provided by law.

The right to bail shall not be impaired even

when the privilege of the writ of habeascorpusis suspended.

4&cessive bail shall not be reuired.

0n all criminal prosecutions, the accused

shall be presumed innocent until guilty, andshall enjoy the right to be heard by himself

and counsel, to be informed of the natureand cause of the accusation against him, tohave speedy, impartial and public trial, tomeet the witnesses face to face, and tohave compulsory process to secure theattendance of witnesses and the production

of evidence in his behalf. *owever, after

1


2/39

arraignment, trial may proceednotwithstanding the absence of the accusedprovided that the has been duly notified andhis failure to appear is unjustifiable.

2o person shall be compelled to be a

witness against himself.

Any persons under investigation for the

commission of an offense shall have the

right to be informed of his right to remainssilent and to have competent andindependent counsel preferably of his ownchoice.

0f the person cannot afford the services of

counsel, he must be provided with one.

These rights cannot e waived e&cept in

writing and in the presence of counsel.

2o torture, force, violence, threat,

intimidation, or any other means which

vitiate the free will of shall be used againsthim. $ecret detention places, solitary,incommunicado, or other similar forms of

detention are prohibited.

Any confession or admission obtained in

violation of this or $ection 15 hereof shallbe inadmissible in evidence against him.

4&cessive fines shall not be imposed, not

cruel, degrading or inhuman punishmentinflicted.

2o person shall be twice put in jeopardy of

punishment for the same offense. 0f an actis punished by law and an ordinance,conviction, or acuittal under either shallconstitute a bar to another prosecution forthe same act.

6ree access to the courts and uasi#judicial

bodies and adeuate legal assistance shall

not be denied to any person by reasonpoverty.

Certain rights may be waived 78ight of the accusedto confrontation and cross#e&amination9 however,some acts are non#waivable, such as the right to be

informed of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst him. This is true because, some rightsinvolve public interest, and as such may be affected,it could not be waived for the general benefit as

against to rights that can be waived which arepersonal in nature.

"HAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OCRI&INAL LA"'

!ENERAL That criminal laws are binding

on all persons who live or sojourn in the+hilippine territory.

a. 6oreigner criminals are liable within the+hilippines if they commit a crime whileliving or sojourning in +hilippineterritory.

b. 4ven foreign military employees, can beheld liable, so long as there isnt ane&press legislation holding otherwise.

c. The 8evised +enal Code, however, isnot applicable when the military ta%escogni-ance of the case, since theaccused will instead be subject to acourt martial. A case before a court#

martial is a bar to another prosecutionfor the same offense, this invo%es theprinciple of double jeopardy.

d. ;ffenders of war crimes are triableunder a military commission, which has

jurisdiction so long as a technical stateof war continues. This includes theperiod of an armistice, or military

occupation, up to the effective date of atreaty of peace.

E-CEPTIONS'

0n instances provided for in treaties andlaws of preferential application,3 and

principles of public international law and totreaty stipulations.3

E-A&PLES'

a. Treaties: nited $tates and the+hilippines.

b. ?aw of +referential Application: 8A. 5),

in favor of diplomatic representativesand their domestic servants.

c. +rinciples of +ublic 0nternational ?aw:$overeign immunity, which include:1. sovereigns and other chiefs of

state, and". ambassadors, ministers

plenipotentiary, ministers residentand charges daffaires. 7consuls,vice#consuls and other commercialrepresentatives of foreign

nationals, do not enjoy suchsovereign immunity9

TERRITORIAL That criminal laws

underta%e to punish crimes committedwithin +hilippine territory.

"HAT DOES THE PHILIPPINE

TERRITOR INCL)DE'

+hilippine territory includes the +hilippinearchipelago, including its atmosphere, itsinterior waters, and maritime -one.

E-CEPTIONS'

"


3/39

$ee Article "

PROSPECTIVE That criminal laws cannot

ma%e an act punishable in a manner inwhich it was not punishable whencommitted. (Art. '@@ of the 8evised +enalCode

E-CEPTIONS'

henever a new statute dealing with crimeestablishes conditions more lenient orfavorable to the accused, but not if:a. The new law is e&pressly made

inapplicable to pending actions ore&isting causes of action.

b. The offender is a habitual criminal

"HAT ARE THE EECTS O REPEAL O PENALLA"'

hen repeal ma%es the penalty lighter

in the new law, the new law shall be

applied, e&cept when (1 the new law ise&pressly made inapplicable to pendingactions or e&isting causes of actions or(" where the offender is a habitualcriminal

hen repeal imposes a heavier penalty,

the law in force at the time of thecommission shall be applied.

hen repeal totally repeals the e&isting

law so that the act is no longerpunishable, the crime is thereforeobliterated.

HO" ARE PENAL LA"S CONSTR)ED'

+enal laws are strictly construed

against the government and liberally infavor of the accused, this is invo%edonly when the law is ambiguous. This is%nown as the doctrine ofpro reo.

0n interpretation of the provisions

of the 8evised +enal Code, the $panishte&t is controlling, because it 7the8evised +enal Code9 was approved inits $panish te&t.

"HAT IS THE HISTOR O THE REVISED PENALCODE'

The 8evised +enal Code is a revision of the old +enalCode of 1BB5 (1 uly, 1BB5 to '1 /ecember, 1='1

and inclusion into the draft of other penal lawsrelated to it. The 8evised +enal Code does notembody the latest progress of criminal science, asthe results of the application of advanced and radicaltheories still remain to be seen.3 The committeeformed to revise the old +enal Code includedAnacleto /ia- as chairman, with members Duintin+aredes, Euillermo Euevara, Ale& 8eyes and ariano

de oya, deriving its authority from Administrative;rder = of the /epartment of ustice.

HO" IS THE REVISED PENAL CODE DIVIDED'

The 8evised +enal Code includes


4/39

ART. ;. APPLICATION O ITS PROVISIONS. E?cet as #o/%ded %nte t#eat%es and $a:s o2 #e2e#ent%a$a$%cat%on, te #o/%s%ons o2 t%s Code sa$$ 4een2o#ced not on$7 :%t%n te P%$%%neA#c%e$a0o, %nc$9d%n0 %ts atmose#e, %ts

%nte#%o# :ate#s and ma#%t%me @one, 49t a$soo9ts%de o2 %ts 9#%sd%ct%on, a0a%nst tose :o

1. So9$d comm%t an o22ense :%$e on aP%$%%ne s% o2 a%#s%B

;. So9$d 2o#0e o# co9nte#2e%t an7 co%n o#c9##enc7 note o2 te P%$%%ne Is$andso# o4$%0at%ons and sec9#%t%es %ss9ed 47te !o/e#nment o2 te P%$%%neIs$andsB

3. So9$d 4e $%a4$e 2o# acts connected:%t te %nt#od9ct%on %nto tese Is$andso2 te o4$%0at%ons and sec9#%t%es

ment%oned %n te #eced%n0 n9m4e#.

. "%$e 4e%n0 94$%c o22%ce#s o#em$o7ees, so9$d comm%t an o22ense%n te e?e#c%se o2 te%# 29nct%onsB o#

5. So9$d comm%t an7 o2 te c#%mesa0a%nst nat%ona$ sec9#%t7 and te $a: o2nat%ons, de2%ned In T%t$e One o2 +oo6T:o o2 t%s Code.

"HAT IS ENCO&PASSED + PHILIPPINETERRITOR'

+hilippine territory is comprised by the +hilippine

archipelago including atmosphere, interior watersand maritime -ones.

IN "HAT CASES ARE THE PROVISIONS O THEREVISED PENAL CODE APPLICA+LE EVEN ITHE ELON IS CO&&ITTED O)TSIDE O THEPHILIPPINES'

;n a +hilippine ship or airship

6orge counterfeit any coin or currency

note, obligations and securities issued

by the Eovernment Acts connected with the introduction

into the islands of such counterfeitobligations and securities.

+ublic officers and employees, should

they commit an offense in the e&erciseof their function.

Crime against national security and law

of nations (defined in Title 1,


5/39

The 4nglish 8ule strictly enforces the territoriality ofcriminal law. The law of the foreign country where aforeign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictlyapplied, e&cept if the crime affects only the internalmanagement of the vessel in which case it is subjectto the penal law of the country where it is registered.

$ v. 6owler

TITLE ONEe$on%es and C%#c9mstances :%c A22ect

C#%m%na$ L%a4%$%t7

CHAPTER ONEe$on%es

ART. 3. DEINITION. Acts and om%ss%ons9n%sa4$e 47 $a: a#e 2e$on%es (de$%tos.

e$on%es a#e comm%tted not on$7 47 means o2dece%t (do$o 49t a$so 47 means o2 2a9$t(c9$a.

Te#e %s dece%t :en te act %s e#2o#med :%tde$%4e#ate %ntentB and te#e %s 2a9$t :en te:#on029$ act #es9$ts 2#om %m#9dence,ne0$%0ence, $ac6 o2 2o#es%0t, o# $ac6 o2 s6%$$.

"HAT ARE ELONIES'

6elonies are acts or omissions punishable by the8evised +enal Code.

"HAT ARE OENSES'

A crime punished under a special law is called as

statutory offense."HAT ARE &ISDE&EANORS'

A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation ofan ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor.

"HAT IS A CRI&E'

hether the wrongdoing is punished under the8evised +enal Code or under a special law, thegeneric word crime can be used.

"HAT IS AN ACT'

An act is bodily movement tending to produce someeffect in the e&ternal world.

"HAT *IND O ACT IS P)NISHED'

The act must be e&ternal, because internal acts arebeyond the sphere of penal law. A criminal thoughtor a mere intention, no matter how immoral orimproper will never constitute a felony. 0t must alsobe voluntarily made.

"HAT IS AN O&ISSION'

;mission means inaction or failure to perform apositive duty.

"HAT IS THE RE)ISITE OR +EIN!P)NISHED +ECA)SE O A ELON +O&ISSION'

There must be a law reuiring the doing or

performance of an act The person reuired to do the act

voluntarily fails to perform it.

SILVESTRE SA" ATIENA SET IRE TO AHO)SE. SILVESTRE DID NOT REPORT THE

INCIDENT TO THE A)THORITIES. IS SHECRI&INALL LIA+LE'

2;. ere passive presence at the scene of anotherscrime, mere silence, without evidence of agreementor conspiracy is not punishable. There is no lawreuiring that a person must report a crime that hewitnessed.

)


6/39

"HAT RE)ISITES &)ST CONC)R +EORE AELON &A +E CO&&ITTED'

1. An act or omission". +unishable by the 8evised +enal Code'. The act is performed or the omission

incurred by means of dolo (deceit orculpa (fault.

HO" IS DOLO DIERENT RO& C)LPA'

/olo is euivalent to malice, so an intentional felonyis that which is performed with malice, and the actresulting from a deliberate intent to cause an injury.

A culpable felony on the other hand is that which isperformed without malice, the act resulting fromimprudence, negligence, lac% of foresight, or a lac%of s%ill.

"HAT IS &EANT + N)LL)& CRI&EN, N)LLA

POENA SINE LE!EG

2ulla crimen, nulla poena sine lege means that there

is no crime where there is no law punishing it.

"HAT IS THE DIERENCE +ET"EEN A ELONAND A CRI&E'

A felony is specific to the +enal Code, a crime oroffense is used for special laws.

DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN INTENTIONAL ANDC)LPA+LE ELONIES.

0ntentional and Culpable felonies are both voluntaryin nature. *owever, intentional felonies means thatthe act is malicious and intentional, while culpablefelonies are acts without malice and areunintentional.

"HAT IS &EANT + I&PR)DENCE'

0mprudence means a deficiency in action or lac% ofs%ill

"HAT IS &EANT + NE!LI!ENCE'

2egligence means deficiency in perception or lac% of

foresight

"HAT IS THE DIERENCE +ET"EENNE!LI!ENCE AND I&PR)DENCE'

0n negligence, there is deficiency of action, while in

imprudence, there is deficiency of

perception.

"H IS IT, THAT +OTH ACTS ARE CONSIDEREDVOL)NTAR'

The word voluntary in criminal law does not meanacting in ones own volition. 0n criminal law,voluntary comprehends the concurrence of freedomof action, intelligence and the fact that the act wasintentional. 0n culpable felonies, there is novoluntary#ness if either freedom, intelligence or

imprudence, negligence, lac% of foresight or lac% ofs%ill is lac%ing. ithout voluntary#ness, there can beno dolo or culpa, hence, there is no felony.

DOLO

"HAT ARE THE RE)ISITES O DOLO'

1. 6844/; to commit or omit an act.". 02T4??0E42C4 while committing or omitting

an act'. 02T42T while committing or omitting an act

"H REEDO&'

ithout freedom, man ceases to be human, but atool, thus there should be no liability.

"H INTELLI!ENCE'

ithout intelligence, man cannot determine themorality of the acts

"H INTENT'

0ntent is mental but presumed from the commissionof overt acts.

IS CRI&INAL INTENT PRES)&ED'

H4$. Criminal intent is always presumed to e&ist,provided that there is proof of the commission of anunlawful act. This presumption does not arise whenthe act performed is lawful. oreover, the

presumption can always be rebutted by proof of lac%of intent.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A was walking in his sleep, he got a bolo and injuredhis wife, is he criminally liable?

2;. *is acts were not voluntary because he acted ina dream. As such, he had no criminal intent. (+eopleof the +hilippines v. Taneo

&A A CRI&E +E CO&&ITTED "ITHO)TCRI&INAL INTENT'

H4$I Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases: Crime is a product of culpa or

negligence, rec%less imprudence, lac%of foresight or lac% of s%ill!

Crime is a prohibited act under a

special law or what is called malumprohibitum.

"HAT IS THE DIERENCE +ET"EEN INTENTAND DISCERN&ENT'

0ntent is the determination to do a certain thing, anaim or purpose of the mind. 0t is the design toresolve or determination by which a person acts.

@


7/39

;n the other hand, discernment is the mentalcapacity to tell right from wrong. 0t relates to themoral significance that a person ascribes to his actand relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo,distinct from intent.

"HAT IS THE DIERENCE +ET"EEN &OTIVEAND INTENT'

otive is the moving power which impels one toaction for a definite result. hen there is motive inthe commission of a crime, it always comes beforethe intent.


8/39

1. 6844/; to commit or omit the act". 02T4??0E42C4 while committing or omitting

to the act'. 0+8>/42C4K24E?0E42C4 while

committing or omitting an act"HEN CAN IT +E SAID THAT A PERSON "ASNOT NE!LI!ENT'

hen the person acted with due care, without faultor negligence, such as when a person doing a lawfulact with due care, causes an injury by mere accidentwithout fault of causing it. (Art. 1", par.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A, with his two companions, $ and C were hunting atnight. A saw a pair of eyes with his lantern andthinking it belonged to a deer, shot it. #t turned outto be his companion $. #s A criminally liable?

H4$. A performed a voluntary act in discharging hisgun. Although the resulting homicide is without

malice, A should have e&ercised all the necessarydiligence, %nowing he had two other companions. Ais guilty of homicide through rec%less imprudence.(+eople of the +hilippines v. 8amire-

A and $ were hunting. $oth had their guns alreadycocked. 'uddenly, A stumbled on a rock and felldown, accidentally discharging the gun which hit $and killed him. #s A criminally liable?

2;. *unting is not prohibited by law and there was

no criminal intent nor negligence on the part of Awhich may classify the act as a felony. (>$ v.Catangay

"HEN IS A CRI&E NOT A ELON'

A crime is not a felony when it doesnt have thereuisites of either a felony committed by dolo orculpa, or when it is a crime punished by a speciallaw.

CRI&ES P)NISHED + A SPECIAL LA"

"HAT IS THE &AIN CHARACTERISTIC O A

CRI&E P)NISHED + A SPECIAL LA"'

0t is generally mala prohibita. hen the crime ispunished by a special law, as a rule, intent tocommit the crime is not necessary. 0t is sufficientthat the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act

prohibited by the special law freely and consciously.

"HAT IS THE DIERENCE +ET"EEN &AL)& INSE AND &AL)& PROHI+IT)&'

ala in se (rong in itself is inherently immoral. ;nthe other hand, ala prohibita (rong by law isinjurious to public welfare.

&ALA IN SE&AL)& PROHI+IT)&

The moral trait of the offender is considered.The moral trait of the offender is

not considered! it isThis is why liability would only arise when there

enough that the prohibited act wasvoluntarily done.is dolo or culpa in the commission of thepunishable act.

Eood faith or lac% of criminal intent is a validEood faith is not a defense

defense! unless the crime is the result of culpa

The degree of accomplishment of the crime is

The act gives rise to a crime only when it ista%en into account in punishing the offender!

consummated! there are no attempted orfrustratedthus, there are attempted, frustrated, and

stages, unless the special law e&pressly

penali-e theconsummated stages in the commission of

mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

the crime.

itigating and aggravating circumstancesitigating and aggravating circumstances

are

are ta%en into account in imposing the penaltynot ta%en into account in imposing the

penalty.since the moral trait of the offender isconsidered.

hen there is more than one offender, theThe degree of participation of the offenders

degree of participation of each in theis not considered. All who perpetrated the

commission of the crime is ta%en into account

prohibited act are penali-ed to the samee&tent.in imposing the penalty! thus, offenders are

There is no principal or accompliceor accessoryclassified as principal, accomplice and

to consider.accessory.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

An election registrar was prosecuted for havingfailed to include in the voter(s register the name of acertain voter. %here is a provision in the election law

which proscribes any person from preventing or

disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. Heclaims good faith. !ould such defense prosper?

/isenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is notwrong because there is a provision of law declaring itas a crime, but because with or without a law, thatact is wrong. 0n other words, it is malum in se.Conseuently, good faith is a defense. $ince theprosecution failed to prove that the accused actedwith malice, he was acuitted. (+eople of the+hilippines v. $unico

B


9/39

ART. . CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT. C#%m%na$$%a4%$%t7 sa$$ 4e %nc9##ed

+7 an7 e#son comm%tt%n0 a 2e$on7 (de$%to

a$to90 te :#on029$ act done 4e d%22e#ent2#om tat :%c e %ntended.

+7 an7 e#son e#2o#m%n0 an act :%c

:o9$d 4e an o22ense a0a%ns e#sons o##oe#t7, :e#e %t not 2o# te %ne#ent%moss%4%$%t7 o2 %ts accom$%sment o# onacco9nt o2 te em$o7ment o2 %nadeF9ateo# %ne22ect9a$ means.

"HAT ARE THE RE)ISITES O CRI&INALLIA+ILIT'

1. 0ntentional felony is committed.". rong done be direct, natural and

logical conseuence of the felony.

'. Anyone who creates an immediatesense of danger which causessomething resulting in injuries is liablefor such injuries.

"HAT ARE THE T"O OTHER "AS OINC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT'

The wrongful act is different from that

intended. (par. 1 0mpossible crimes (par. "

DISTIN!)ISH ARTICLE 3 RO& ARTICLE .

Criminal liability is incurred by any person in the

cases mentioned in Article . This article has no

reference to the manner criminal liability is incurred.Article ' refers to the manner of incurring criminalliability.

PARA!RAPH 1 G "RON!)L ACT DIERENTRO& "HAT INTENDED

"HAT IS &EANT + EL )E ES CA)SA DE LACA)SA ES CA)SA DEL &AL CA)SADOG

4l ue es causa de la causa es causa del malcausado means he who is the cause of cause if thecause of the evil caused.

E-PLAIN THE PHRASE CO&&ITTIN! AELON IN ARTICLE , PAR. 1.

The felony committed by the offender should be onecommitted by means of dolo, that is, with malice,

because par. 1 of Article spea%s of wrongful actdone different from that intended.

0f the wrongful act results from imprudence,negligence, lac% of foresight or lac% of s%ill, hisliability should be determined under Article '@),which defines and penali-es criminal negligence.

The act or omission should not be punished byspecial law because the offender may not have theintent of injuring another.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A was trying to snatch $(s bolo. #n the course of thestruggle, $ wrenched the bolo from A(s hand with

such force that the point of the bolo hit C(s chestwho was standing behind $, the latter not knowingof the other(s presence. #s $ criminally liable?

There is no evidence to show that the accusedinjured the deceased deliberately and with the

intention of committing a crime. *e was onlydefending his possession of the bolo. hen a personhas not committed a felony, he is not criminallyliable for the result which is not intended. (+eople ofthe +hilippines v.


10/39

"HAT IS THE &EANIN! O PRO-I&ATE CA)SE'

+ro&imate cause means the cause which in naturaland continuous seuence, unbro%en by any efficientintervening cause, produces the injury, withoutwhich the result would not have occurred.

As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable forall the conseuences of his felonious act, althoughnot intended, if the felonious act is the pro&imatecause of the felony or resulting felony. A pro&imatecause is not necessarily the immediate cause. Thismay be a cause which is far and remote from the

conseuence which sets into motion other causeswhich resulted in the felony.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

*uring a robbery in the jeepney, one of the culpritstold the women passengers to bring out their

money and not to shout or else there will be shots."+ne of the women jumped out of the jeepney,hitting her head on the pavement. #s the culpritcriminally liable for the death of the woman?

H4$. 0f a man creates in another persons mind animmediate sense of danger, which causes suchperson to try to escape, and, in so doing, the latterinjures himself, the man creates such a state of mindis responsible for the resulting injuries. The reasonfor the ruling is that when the culprit demanded

money, a felony was already being committed, andso the culprit is responsible for all the conseuencesof his acts. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Toling

A is in charge of the crewmembers engaged in the

loading of cargo in the vessel. $ecause $ was slow inhis work, A shouted at him. $ replied that theywould be better if A would not insult them. Aresented this, and rising in rage, he moved towardsthe victim, with a big knife in hand threatening to killhim. $ believing himself to be in immediate peril,threw himself into the water. %he victim died ofdrowning. #s A criminally liable only for grave threatsor homicide?

*;0C0/4. *is contention that his liability should beonly for grave threats since he did not even stab thevictim, that the victim died of drowning, and this canbe considered as a supervening cause, does not holdweight. 0t was held that the deceased, in throwing

himself into the river, acted solely in obedience to

the instinct of self#preservation, and was in no senselegally responsible for his own death. As to him, itwas but the e&ercise of a choice between two evils,and any reasonable person under the samecircumstance might have done the same. Theaccused must, therefore, be considered as theauthor of the death of the victim. (>$ v. Lalde-

A stabbed $ with an ice pick. $ was brought to thehospital where an operation was performed uponhim. %he operation was successful and $ was in the

process of recovery. $ut days later, $ developedparalytic ileum which takes place sometimes inconse&uence of the exposure of the internal organs.#s A liable for $(s death?

H4$. Although the stab wound was not theimmediate cause of


11/39

H4$. These are conseuences of the criminal act andwhich might naturally follow in any case, and theymust in law be deemed to have been among thoseconseuences which were in contemplation of theguilty party and for which he is to be heldresponsible. >ns%illful and improper treatment maybe an active force, but is not a distinct act or factabsolutely foreign from the criminal act.

#s the accused criminally liable for the conse&uenceswhich originate through the fault or carelessness ofthe injured person?

2;. +ersons who are responsible for an act

constituting a crime are also liable for all theconseuences arising therefrom and inherenttherein, other than those due to incidents entirelyforeign to the act e&ecuted, or which originatethrough the fault or carelessness of the injuredperson. (>$ v. onasterial

The fault or carelessness of the injured party, whichwould brea% the relation of the felony committed and

the resulting injury, must have its origin from hismalicious act or omission, as when the injured partyhad a desire to increase the criminal liability of hisassailant. (>$ v. 2avarro

A and $ had a &uarrel and started hacking eachother. $ was wounded at the back. Cooler headsintervened and they were separated. 'omehow,their differences were patched up. A agreed toshoulder all the expenses for the treatment of thewound of $, and to pay him also whatever lost of

income $ may have failed to receive. $, on theother hand, signed a forgiveness in favor of A and onthat condition, he withdrew the complaint that hefiled against A. After so many weeks of treatment ina clinic, the doctor pronounced the wound already

healed. %hereafter, $ went back to his farm. %womonths later, $ came home and he was chilling.$efore midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning.%he heirs of $ filed a case of homicide against A. #s

A liable?

2;. Ta%ing into account the incubation period oftetanus to&ic, medical evidence were presented thattetanus to&ic is good only for two wee%s. That if,

indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus poisoningout of the wound inflicted by A, he would not havelasted two months. hat brought about tetanus toinfect the body of < was his wor%ing in his farmusing his bare hands.


12/39


13/39

against years of abuse. Considering thecircumstances, the appellant is deserving ofe&ecutive clemency, not of full pardon but of asubstantial if not a radical reduction of her lifesentence. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Canja

A, a trial judge, felt that the penalty set by law wastoo excessive, and imposed a lesser penalty. #s he

correct?

2;. The courts should interpret and apply the lawsas they find them on the statute boo%s, regardless ofthe manner their judgments are e&ecuted andimplemented by the 4&ecutive /epartment. (+eople

of the +hilippines v. ;laes

The same rule applies regarding laws interpreted bythe $upreme Court. A judge may state his opinion onthe matter, but rather than disposing of the case inaccordance with his personal view, he must interpret

them in accordance with the interpretations of the$upreme Court. (+eople of the +hilippines v. $antos

ART. J. CONS)&&ATED, R)STRATED ANDATTE&PTED ELONIES. Cons9mmated2e$on%es, as :e$$ as tose :%c a#e 2#9st#atedand attemted, a#e 9n%sa4$e.

A 2e$on7 %s cons9mmated :en a$$ te e$ementsnecessa#7 2o# %ts e?ec9t%on andaccom$%sment a#e #esentB and %t %s2#9st#ated :en te o22ende# e#2o#ms a$$ teacts o2 e?ec9t%on :%c :o9$d #od9ce te

2e$on7 as a conseF9ence 49t :%c,ne/e#te$ess, do not #od9ce %t 47 #eason o2ca9ses %ndeendent o2 te :%$$ o2 e#et#ato#.

Te#e %s an attemt :en te o22ende#

commences te comm%ss%on o2 a 2e$on7 d%#ect$747 o/e# acts, and does not e#2o#m a$$ te actso2 e?ec9t%on :%c so9$d #od9ce te 2e$on747 #eason o2 some ca9se o# acc%dent ote# %so:n sontaneo9s des%stance.

"HAT ARE THE STA!ES THAT A CRI&E PASSESTHRO)!H +EORE ITS CO&&ISSION'

0nternal Acts

4&ternal Acts

"HAT IS &EANT + INTERNAL ACTS'

0nternal acts are mere ideas in the mind of a person,not punishable even if had they been carried out,

they would constitute a crime.

"HAT IS &EANT + E-TERNAL ACTS'

4&ternal acts must be related to the overt acts of thecrime the offender intended to commit.

"HAT DO E-TERNAL ACTS INCL)DE'

4&ternal acts include preparatory acts and acts ofe&ecution.

"HAT ARE PREPARATOR ACTS'

+reparatory acts are those that do not have a directconnection with the crime which the offender intendsto commit. These are ordinarily not punishable

e&cept when e&pressly provided for.

"HAT ARE ACTS O E-EC)TION'

$tages of acts of e&ecution are those punishableunder the 8evised +enal Code, namely attempted,

frustrated and consummated.

DO THE STA!ES O E-EC)TION APPL TO ALLCRI&ES )NDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE'

2;. There is no attempted or frustrated stage when

a crime is done by means of culpa.

"HAT IS A CONS)&&ATED ELON'

A felony is consummated when all the elementsnecessary for the e&ecution and accomplishment ofthe felony are present.

"HAT IS A R)STRATED ELON'

A felony is frustrated when the offender performs allthe acts of e&ecution which would produce the felonyas a result, but which nevertheless do not produce itby reason of causes independent of the will of the

perpetrator.

ATTE&PTED ELON

"HAT IS AN ATTE&PTED ELON'

There is an attempt when the offender commencesthe commission of a felony directly by over acts, anddoes not perform all the acts of e&ecution whichshould produce the felony by reason of some causeof accident other than his own spontaneousdesistance.

"HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O THE ATTE&PTED

STA!E O E-EC)TION' Commences commission of the offense

directly by overt acts /oes not perform all the acts of

e&ecution which should produce thefelony

;ffenders act is not stopped by his own

spontaneous desistance 2on#performance of all acts of

e&ecution was due to cause or accident

other than his spontaneous desistance.

"HAT IS AN OVERT ACT'

;vert acts are some physical activity or deed,indication the intention to commit a particular crime,more than mere planning or preparation, which itcarried to its complete termination following is

1'


14/39

natural cause, without being frustrated by e&ternalobstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of theperpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into aconcrete offense.

"HAT IS THE DIERENCE O PREPARATORACTS RO& OVERT ACTS'

;vert acts have a direct connection to the crime. 6ore&ample, buying rat poison is a preparatory act,because a crime is not committed by mere buying ofrat poison.

"HAT IS AN INDETER&INATE OENSE'

An indeterminate offense is where the purpose of theoffender in performing an act is not certain. 0tsnature and relation to its objective is ambiguous.

IN ATTE&PTED ELON, IT IS STATED THAT

THE OENDER NEVER PASSES THES)+ECTIVE PHASE O THE OENSE. "HAT ISTHE S)+ECTIVE PHASE O THE OENSE'

$ubjective phase is that portion of the actsconstituting the crime, starting from the point wherethe offender begins the commission of the crime tothat point where he still has control over his acts,

including the natural course.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

4 points a gun at A with intent to kill the latter.However, just before he pulls the trigger, 4 desists

at the last moment. #s 4 guilty of an attemptedhomicide?

2;. 0n attempted felonies, the non#performance ofall the acts of e&ecution must be due to cause or

accident other than the offenders spontaneousdesistance.

A, a policeman, while talking to $, made a motion todraw his pistol. $ then suddenly embraced him to

prevent him from drawing out the pistol. !as therean overt act of homicide on the part of A?

2;. The action of A in placing his hand on his

revolver is susceptible of different interpretations. 0tcannot be definitely concluded that the attempt ofthe accused in drawing out his pistol, would developto a concrete offense. To constitute attemptedhomicide, the person using a firearm, with intent to%ill, must fire at the offended party, without however

inflicting a mortal wound.

At an early dawn, A was surprised by a policemanwhile in the act of making an opening with an ironbar on the wall of a store of cheap good. At thattime, the owner of the store was sleeping inside. Ahad only succeeded in breaking one board and inunfastening another from the wall. #s there anattempted robbery in this case?

2;. There is no direct connection between brea%ingone board and unfastening another with the crime of

robbery. 0n order that it would be considered anattempted robbery using force upon things, it mustbe shown that the offender clearly intended to ta%epossession for the purpose of gain, of some personalproperty of another. The purpose is not clear in thiscase.

The crime committed was attempted trespass to

dwelling, because the intention of the accused wasobviously disclosed by his act of ma%ing an opening,and because A was not able to perform all the acts ofe&ecution which should produce the offense ofattempted trespass to dwelling.

A induced $ to kill C, but $ refused to do it. #s Aliable for attempted homicide because of conspiracy?

2;. Although there was an attempt on the part of A,such an attempt was not done directly by overt acts.The inducement by A to < is in the nature of a

proposal which is not directly punished by law.


15/39

DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN A R)STRATED ANDATTE&PTED ELON

0n both, offender has not accomplished his criminalpurpose. *owever, in frustrated, performance of allacts of e&ecution which shouldve produced thefelony as a conseuence. 0n attempted,commencement of the commission of the felony by

overt acts does not perform all acts of e&ecution.

6rustrated reaches the objective phase while theattempted only reaches the subjective phase.

DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN ATTE&PTED,

R)STRATED AND I&POSSI+LE CRI&E.

0n all, the evil intent was not accomplished. 0nimpossible crime, intent cannot be accomplished,while in attempted and frustrated, evil intent can beaccomplished.

0n impossible, it is inherently impossible orineffectual and inadeuate means is used. 0n

attempted and frustrated, intervention of certaincause or accident in which offender had no part.

"HAT IS )SED TO DETER&INE "HETHER THECRI&E IS ONL ATTE&PTED OR R)STRATED

OR CONS)&&ATED'

2ature of the offense

4lements constituting the felony

anner of committing the crime.

"HAT ARE THE CLASSIICATIONS O CRI&ES)SIN! THE &ANNER CO&&ITTIN! S)CH'

6ormal crimes: consummated in an

instant, no attempt, for e&ample,

slander. Crimes consummated by the mere

attempt or proposal or the overt acts,for e&ample, treason, or flight toenemy country

6elony by omission: no attempted

stage. Crimes reuiring the intervention of "

persons are consummated by the mere

agreement (eg.


16/39

0f there was a bla-e, but no part of the house isburned, the crime of arson is frustrated.

hen a person had poured gasoline under the houseof another and was about to stri%e a match to setthe house on fire when he was apprehended, he isguilty of attempted arson. The acts performed by

him are in direct connection with the crime of arson.

IS THERE S)CH A CRI&E AS R)STRATEDRAPE'

2;. 6or the consummation of rape, perfect

penetration is not essential. Any penetration of thefemale organ by the male organ is sufficient. Ta%inginto account the nature, elements and manner ofe&ecution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence onthe matter, it is hardly conceivable how thefrustrated stage of rape can be committed. (+eople

of the +hilippines v. ;rita This case reverses theearlier judgments of frustrated rape including +eopleof the +hilippines v. 4rina.

CAN THERE +E AN ATTE&PT OR R)STRATIONO AN I&POSSI+LE CRI&E'

2;. $ince the offender has already performed all the

acts for the e&ecution of an impossible crime, therecan no attempted impossible crime. There is also nofrustrated impossible crime because the actsperformed by the offender are considered asconstituting a consummated offense.

ART. K. "HEN LI!HT ELONIES AREP)NISHA+LE. L%0t 2e$on%es a#e 9n%sa4$eon$7 :en te7 a/e 4een cons9mmated, :%tte e?cet%on o2 tose comm%tted a0a%nst

e#sons o# #oe#t7.

"HAT ARE LI!HT ELONIES'

?ight felonies are infractions of law for thecommission of which the penalty of arresto menor ora fine not e&ceeding "FF pesos or both as provided.

"H IS THE ATTE&PTED AND R)STRATEDSTA!E O A LI!HT ELON NOT P)NISHA+LE'

2o penalty is provided for the attempted orfrustrated stage of a light felony because wrong is soslight there is no need of providing a penalty. 4&cept

if felony is against a person or property because of

moral depravity.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A, because of hunger, tried to steal 712.22 from $.$ut before he could do so, a policeman stopped him.#s A liable under the 5evised 7enal Code?

2;. A committed a light offense which is punishableonly when consummated.

ART. 8. CONSPIRAC AND PROPOSAL TOCO&&IT ELON. Cons%#ac7 and #oosa$ tocomm%t 2e$on7 a#e 9n%sa4$e on$7 %n te cases%n :%c te $a: sec%a$$7 #o/%des a ena$t7te#e2o#.

A cons%#ac7 e?%sts :en t:o o# mo#e e#sons

come to an a0#eement conce#n%n0 tecomm%ss%on o2 a 2e$on7 and dec%de to comm%t %t.

Te#e %s a #oosa$ :en te e#son :o asdec%ded to comm%t a 2e$on7 #ooses %tse?ec9t%on to some ote# e#son o# e#sons.

"HAT IS THE !ENERAL R)LE AS RE!ARDSCONSPIRAC AS A ELON'

Conspiracy as a felony is only punishable when

provided for, for e&ample, treason and rebellion.

"HAT IS A CONSPIRAC'

A conspiracy is when two or more persons come toan agreement concerning commission of a felony anddecide to commit it.

"HAT ARE THE T"O *INDS O CONSPIRAC'

Conspiracy as a crime

Conspiracy as a means of incurring

liability

"HAT IS THE DIERENCE +ET"EEN THE T"O'hen conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is

necessary to bring about the criminal liability. Themere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only truewhen the law e&pressly punishes the mere

conspiracy! otherwise, the conspiracy does not bringabout the commission of the crime becauseconspiracy is not an overt act but a merepreparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, andcoup detat are the only crimes where the conspiracyand proposal to commit to them are punishable.

Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liabilityapplies where there is a crime actually committed.The conspiracy here is not a felony, but only amanner of incurring criminal liability, that is, when

there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.6urthermore, it is not punishable as a separateoffense.

"HEN IS THERE A CONSPIRAC AS A &ANNERO INC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT'

hen the acts are aimed at the same object, oneperforming one part and the other performinganother part so as to complete it, with a view to theattainment of the same object, and their acts,though apparently independent, were in factconcerted and cooperative. (+eople of the +hilippinesv. Eeronimo

1@


17/39

0n short, there must be unity of purpose, and theacts of the conspirators must show a commondesign.

DISTIN!)ISH CONSPIRAC AS A &ANNER OINC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT RO&EVIDENT PRE&EDITATION, AN A!!RAVATIN!CIRC)&STANCE'

>nli%e in evident premeditation, where a sufficientperiod of time must elapse to afford full opportunityfor meditation and reflection and for the perpetratorto deliberate on the conseuences of his intendeddeed, (>$ v. Eil conspiracy arises on the very

instant the plotters agree, e&pressly or impliedly, tocommit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.(+eople of the +hilippines v. onroy

"HAT IS A PROPOSAL'

A proposal is when a person who has decided tocommit a felony proposes its e&ecution to someother person or persons.

"HAT IS AN INDICATION O CONSPIRAC'

An indication of conspiracy is that the acts ofdefendants must show a common design.

"HAT ARE THE RE)ISITES O CONSPIRAC'

Two or more persons came to an

agreement Agreement concerned the commission

of a crime 4&ecution of a felony was decided upon

&A A CRI&E +E CO&&ITTE+ + &EREPROPOSAL'

H4$. A crime li%e treason should be actuallycommitted by reason of the proposal, if crime wascommitted, liable for the felony not the proposal

"HAT ARE THE RE)ISITES O A PROPOSAL'

A person has decided to commit a felony

*e proposes its e&ecution to other person or

persons The proposal need not be accepted or else it

shall be a conspiracy

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A desires that the present government beoverthrown. $ut A is afraid to do it himself. A thenproposed the overthrowing of the government tosome desperate people who will do it at the slightest

provocation. #s A liable for proposal to commitrebellion?

2;. The person who proposes must be determinedto commit the felony. 0n this case, A has not decidedto commit rebellion.

A, $ and C after having conceived a criminal plan,decided to kill *. A acted as guard outside *(shouse, while $ held *(s arms as C stabbed him.!hat are the liabilities of A, $, and C?

They are all liable for murder. Their conspiracy is amanner of incurring criminal liability, and so the actof one is the act of all.

!hat if A, the guard, before the murder, ran awaybecause of guilt. !ill he still be held liable?

2;. Although A was part of the criminal plan, hispart in the felony has not been consummated.

Therefore, this is li%e in Article @, spontaneousdesistance, therefore no criminal liability.

!hat if A, was supposed to drive the conspirators tothe site of the crime, and before the murder, againbecause of guilt, ran away. !ill he still be held

liable?

H4$.


18/39

8eclusion perpetua

8eclusion temporal

+erpetual or temporary absolute

disualification +erpetual or temporary special

disualification

+rision mayor

"HAT ARE LESS !RAVE ELONIES'

?ess grave felonies are those whose penalties in the

ma&imum period are correccional.

"HAT ARE THE CORRECCIONAL PENALTIES'

+rision correccional

Arresto mayor

$uspension

/estierro

"HAT ARE LI!HT ELONIES'

?ight felonies are those whose penalty is not morethan arresto menor or the fine is not more than "FFpesos or both, plus public censure.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

#f the penalty prescribed by the offense is prision

correccional 8correccional penalty9 to prision mayor8afflictive penalty9, what is the classificationaccording to Article :?

An afflictive penalty. hen the penalty prescribed bythe offense is composed of two or more distinctpenalties, the highest of the penalties will determinethe classification of the penalty according to Article

=.

!hen the fine for the offense is exactly 7;22, whatis the classification of the offense according to Article:?

0t is a light felony. Although Article "@ provides thata fine not less than +"FF is a correccional penalty,Article = which states that a fine not e&ceeding +"FFis a light felony, should prevail because Article =classifies according to gravity, while Article "@classifies according to the amount.

ART. 1M. OENSES NOT S)+ECT TO THEPROVISIONS O THIS CODE. O22enses :%c

a#e o# %n te 29t9#e ma7 4e 9n%sa4$e 9nde#sec%a$ $a:s a#e not s94ect to te #o/%s%ons o2t%s Code. T%s Code sa$$ 4e s9$ementa#7 tos9c $a:s, 9n$ess te $atte# so9$d sec%a$$7#o/%de te cont#a#7.

"HAT IS &EANT + ARTICLE 1M'

0n Article 1F, there is a reservation provision of the

8evised +enal Code may be applied suppletorily to

special laws3. Hou will only apply the provisions ofthe 8evised +enal Code as a supplement to thespecial law, or simply correlate the violated speciallaw, if needed to avoid an injustice. 0f no justicewould result, do not give suppletorily application ofthe 8evised +enal Code to that of special law.

"HAT ARE SPECIAL LA"S'

A penal law which punishes acts not defined andpenali-ed by the 8evised +enal Code.

"HAT ARE E-A&PLES O PROVISIONS IN THEREVISED PENAL CODE "HICH CANNOT +E

APPLIED TO OENSES P)NISHA+LE )NDERSPECIAL LA"S'

Article @, attempted and frustrated stages ofe&ecution, Article 1' and 1, mitigating andaggravating circumstances, Article 1B and 1=,

accessories and accomplices, Articles )F to )5,penalties, and Article @, application of penalties.

$pecial laws do not provide for a scale of penalties.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

7* -- is a special law amending the 5evised 7enal

Code. #s it subject to the other provisions of the5evised 7enal Code?

H4$. $pecial laws amending the 8evised +enal Codeare subject to its provisions. (+eople of the+hilippines v. acatanda

CHAPTER T"O9st%27%n0 C%#c9mstances and C%#c9mstances

"%c E?emt 2#om C#%m%na$ L%a4%$%t7

"HAT ARE CIRC)&STANCES AECTIN!CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT'

ustifying circumstances (Article 11

4&empting circumstances (Article 1", and

other absolutory causes (Articles "F! 1",last paragraph! "BF, last paragraph, ''"!'! etc.

itigating circumstances (Article 1'

Aggravating circumstances (Article 1

Alternative circumstances (Article 1)

ART. 11. )STIIN! CIRC)&STANCES. Te2o$$o:%n0 do not %nc9# c#%m%na$ $%a4%$%t7

1. An7one :o acts %n de2ense o2 %s e#son o##%0ts, #o/%ded tat te 2o$$o:%n0c%#c9mstances conc9#

a. )n$a:29$ A00#ess%onB4. Reasona4$e necess%t7 o2 te means

em$o7ed to #e/ent o# #ee$ %tBc. Lac6 o2 s922%c%ent #o/ocat%on on

te a#t o2 te e#son de2end%n0%mse$2.

1B


19/39

;. An7one :o acts %n de2ense o2 te e#son o##%0t o2 %s so9se, ascendants, descendants,o# $e0%t%mate, nat9#a$, o# adoted 4#ote#s ands%ste#s. O# o2 %s #e$at%/e 47 a22%n%t7 %n te samede0#ees, and tose 47 consan09%n%t7 :%t te2o9#t c%/%$ de0#ee, #o/%ded tat te 2%#st andsecond #eF9%s%tes #esc#%4ed %n te ne?t

#eced%n0 c%#c9mstance a#e #esent, and te29#te# #eF9%s%te, %n case te #o/ocat%on :as0%/en 47 te e#son attac6ed, tat te onema6%n0 de2ense ad no a#t te#e%n.3. An7one :o acts %n de2ense o2 te e#son o#

#%0ts o2 a st#an0e#, #o/%ded tat te 2%#st andsecond #eF9%s%te ment%oned %n te 2%#stc%#c9mstance o2 t%s a#t%c$e a#e #esent andtat te e#son de2end%n0 4e not %nd9ced 47#e/en0e, #esentment o# ote# e/%$ mot%/e.

. An7 e#son :o, %n o#de# to a/o%d an e/%$ o#%n9#7 does an act :%c ca9ses dama0e toanote#, #o/%ded tat te 2o$$o:%n0 #eF9%s%tes

a#e #esenta. Tat te e/%$ so90t to 4e a/o%dedact9a$$7 e?%stsB

4. Tat te %n9#7 2ea#ed 4e 0#eate#tan tat done to a/o%d %t.

c. Tat te#e 4e no ote# #act%ca$and $ess a#m29$ means o2#e/ent%n0 %t.

5. An7 e#son :o acts %n te 29$2%$$ment o2 ad9t7 o# %n te $a:29$ e?e#c%se o2 a #%0t o#

o22%ce.

J. An7 e#son :o acts %n o4ed%ence to ano#de# %ss9ed 47 a s9e#%o# 2o# some $a:29$9#ose.

"HAT ARE )STIIN! CIRC)&STANCES'

They are those where the act of a person is said tobe in accordance with law, so that such person isdeemed not to have transgressed the law and is freefrom both criminal and civil liability. The lawrecogni-es that there is the non#e&istence of a crime.

"HO HAS THE +)RDEN O PROVIN! THEE-ISTENCE O )STIIN! CIRC)&STANCES'

The accused. The circumstances mentioned in Article11 are matters of defenses so that it is incumbent

upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability,

to prove the justifying circumstances claimed by himto the satisfaction of the court.

PARA!RAPH 1 G SELDEENSE

"HAT IS SELDEENSE'

Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,provided the following circumstances concur:

>nlawful aggression

8easonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel it ?ac% of sufficient provocation on the part of

the person defending himself.

&)ST ALL THE RE)ISITES CONC)R IN ORDERTO INVO*E SELDEENSE'

H4$. 6or complete self#defense to apply, there mustbe a concurrence of all three reuisites.

6urthermore, the first reuisite is an indispensablereuisite, there can be no self#defense, complete orincomplete, unless the victim has committed anunlawful aggression.

"HAT ARE THE RI!HTS INCL)DED IN SEL

DEENSE'

$elf defense includes not only the defense of theperson or body of the one assaulted but also that ofhis rights.

hen there is a defense of property, it must be

coupled with an attac% on the person entrusted withthe said property.

"HAT IS )NLA")L A!!RESSION'

There is unlawful aggression when the peril to oneslife limb or right is either actual or imminent. 0t is

actual when there is an actual physical assault, andimminent when there is a threat to inflict real injury.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A, a policeman, threw stones at the accused who

was avoiding arrest. %he accused threw the stonesback and hit the policeman in the head. Can theaccused plead self)defense?

2;. The first reuisite of self#defense reuires theaggression must be unlawful. 0n this case, theaggression caused by the policeman was lawful sincethe accused was trying to avoid arrest. (+eople ofthe +hilippines v. Eayrama

%wo policeman, A and $, were kidding each other. Atold $ that he had no singing voice. $, in the spirit offun, sei/ed A by the throat. A then took hold of hisgun and killed $. Can A plead self)defense?

2;. The mere fact of sei-ing the accused by thethroat in the spirit of fun cannot be consideredunlawful aggression since there was no peril to Aslife, limb or right.

A, uttered insulting words against $ who retaliatedby hitting A on the head. Can $ invoke self)defense?

2;. 0nsulting words, addressed to the accused, nomatter how objectionable they may have beenwithout physical assault, could not constituteunlawful aggression. 0n this case, there was no perilto ones lie which was actual or imminent.

1=


20/39

%wo persons met in the street. +ne slapped the faceof the other and the latter repelled it by clubbing himand inflicting less serious physical injuries. #s a slapon the face considered unlawful aggression?

H4$. $ince the face represents a person and hisdignity, slapping it is a serious personal attac%. 0t isa physical assault coupled with a willful disregard,

nay, a defiance of an individuals personality. 0t may,therefore, be freuently regarded as placing in realdanger a persons dignity, rights and safety. (+eopleof the +hilippines v. $abio

A, who was looking for her husband, went to the

paramour(s house. As she was about to go up thelatter(s stairs, she saw the paramour with a knife inher hand and in a threatening manner asked whathad brought A there. A then took the gun shebrought and fired at the paramour. Can A invokeself)defense?

2;. There was no unlawful aggression on the part ofthe paramour. 0n order to consider that unlawful

aggression was actually committed, it is necessarythat an attac% or material aggression, an offensiveact positively determining the intent of the aggressorto cause an injury shall have been made. A merethreatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient.

A and $ were walking down an alley. A suddenlyattacked C to the surprise of $. C drew out his knife,causing A to run, and stabbed $. Can C invoke self)defense?

2;. Although the accused was unlawfully attac%ed,nevertheless, the aggressor was not the deceasedbut another person. Conseuently, this unlawfulaggression cannot be considered in this case as anelement of self#defense! because in order to

constitute an element of self#defense, the unlawfulaggression must come, directly or indirectly, fromthe person who was subseuently attac%ed by theaccused. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Euttiere-

A, a ;


21/39

harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger ofsuch injury. (+eople of the +hilippines v.4ncomienda

"HAT IS THE R)LE RE!ARDN! THEREASONA+LENESS O THE NECESSIT O THE&EANS E&PLOED "HEN THE ONE DEENDIN!HI&SEL IS A PEACE OICER'

The peace officer, in the performance of his duty,represents the law which he must uphold. hile thelaw on self#defense allows a private individual toprevent or repel an aggression, the duty of a peaceofficer reuires him to overcome his opponent.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A was attacked by $, who &uickly ran after theattack. !hen A recovered, he took a knife andlooked for $ and stabbed him. Can A invoke self)

defense?

2;. $elf#defense is based on the necessity of the

part of the person attac%ed to prevent or repel theunlawful aggression. 0n this case, the danger or ris%of aggression has disappeared so the secondreuisite of self#defense is lac%ing.

At the moment A was about to stab $, the latter hitthe deceased with a piece of wood on the head. #t iscontended that $ should have only struck the handof A or hit him in a less vulnerable part. #s thecontention correct?

2;. hen the aggression is so sudden that there isno time left to the one ma%ing a defense todetermine as to what course of action to ta%e, thesecond reuisite of self#defense is satisfied.

A was suddenly hit on the head by $ with an iron barat the mall. >nowing there were many people, Afired at random hoping that he would hit $. As aconse&uence, a lot of other people were shot. Can Ainvoke self)defense?

2;. The course of action ta%en by A was notnecessary. 0n repelling or preventing an unlawfulaggression, the one defending must aim at his

assailant, and not indiscriminately fire his deadlyweapon.

A slapped $ in the face. $ then drew out his gun andkilled A, invoking self)defense. #s $(s contentioncorrect?

2;. The means employed by the person ma%ing adefense must be rationally necessary to prevent orrepel an unlawful aggression. 0n this case, there wasno rational necessity to employ the means used.

A, being abruptly awakened by shouts that $ waspursuing A(s children, and seeing upon awakeningthat in fact $ was infuriated and pursuing A(shusband with a bolo in his hand and his arm raisedin an attitude as if to strike, took up a shotgun lying

within her reach and fired at $, killing him at once.!as the means reasonable?

>nder the circumstances, in view of the imminenceof the danger, the only remedy which would beconsidered reasonably necessary to repel or preventthat aggression, was to render the aggressorharmless. As A had on hand a loaded shotgun, this

weapon was the most appropriate one that could beused for the purpose, even at the ris% of %illing theaggressor, since the latters aggression also gravelythreatened the lives of the parties assaulted.

"HAT IS THE REASON OR THE THIRD

RE)ISITE O SELDEENSE'

hen the person defending himself from the attac%by another gave sufficient provocation to the latter,the former is also to be blamed for having givencause for the aggression. *ence, to be entitled to the

benefit of the justifying circumstance of self#defense,the one defending himself must not have been givencause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by

inciting or provo%ing the assailant.

"HAT ARE THE CA)SES IN "HICH THE THIRDRE)ISITE O SEL DEENSE IS CONSIDEREDPRESENT'

hen no provocation at all was given to the

aggressor by the person defending himself!or

hen, even if a provocation was given, it

was not sufficient! or hen, even if the provocation was

sufficient, it was not given by the persondefending himself! or

hen, even if a provocation was given by

the person defending himself, it was not

pro&imate and immediate to the act ofaggression.

HO" DO O) DETER&INE THE S)ICIENC OTHE PROVOCATION'

The provocation must be sufficient, which meansthat it should be proportionate to the act ofaggression and adeuate to stir the aggressor to itscommission (+eople of the +hilippines v. Alconga

IS IT NECESSAR OR THE PROVOCATION TO+E S)ICIENT THAT THE ONE "HO !AVE IT

&)ST HAVE +EEN !)ILT O )SIN! VIOLENCEAND TH)S +ECO&IN! AN )NLA")LA!!RESSOR HI&SEL'

2;. 0t is not necessary. The sufficiency depends onthe circumstances surrounding the incident.

0??>$T8AT0;2:A was running amuck with a dagger and was rushingtowards $. %he latter then got a club and hit A withit in the head. #s there self)defense?

"1


22/39

H4$. The first and second reuisite of self#defense ispresent, as well as the third reuisite since there wasno provocation whatsoever on the part of


23/39

The person defending must not be induced

by revenge, resentment, or other evil

motive.

"HO ARE DEE&ED STRAN!ERS'

Any person not included in the enumeration ofrelatives mentioned in paragraph " of Article 11, is

considered a stranger for purposes of this law.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A heard screams and cries for help. !hen Aresponded, he saw $ attacking his 8$(s9 wife with adagger. A approached $ and struggled for the

possession of the weapon, in the course of which Ainflicted wounds on $. *id A commit a crime?

2;. 0n this case, there is a defense of a strangerbecause all the three reuisites are present.

A has a grudge against $. +ne day, A saw $

attacking a woman. A got a cane and hit $ on the

head. #s A justified in accordance with a defense of astranger?

0t depends. +aragraph ' of Article 11 uses thephrase be not induced.3 *ence, even if the person

enters upon the defense of a stranger out ofgenerous motive to save the stranger from bodilyharm, the third reuisite of defense of stranger stille&ists. The third reuisite would be lac%ing if suchperson was prompted by his grudge against theassailant, because the defense of a stranger wouldbe only a prete&t.

A, an assassin was trying to kill $. %hey werefighting for the possession of A(s gun. After $ wasable to grab the gun, he pointed it to A and whenabout to shoot. C then came and saw $ about to kill

A. C took out his own gun and shot $. A then ranaway. #s C guilty for killing $?

2;. All the three reuisites of defense of stranger ispresent in this case. The fact that it was the innocentman who was %illed will not matter because C actedin the honest belief that it was < who was theaggressor.

PARA!RAPH G AVOIDANCE O !REATER EVILOR IN)R

"HAT ARE THE RE)ISITES OR AVOIDANCEO !REATER EVIL OR IN)R'

That the evil sought to be avoided actually

e&ists That the injury feared be greater than that

done to avoid it That there be no other practical and less

harmful means of preventing it.

"HAT DIERENTIATES PAR. RO& THEOTHER PARA!RAPHS O ARTICLE 11'

As a rule, there is no criminal nor civil liability injustifying circumstances. 0t is only in paragraph

where the persons for whose benefit the harm hasbeen prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion tothe benefit.

6or e&ample, if a driver swerved his car to preventhitting a child and hit a car instead, he will be civillyliable for the damages caused in the other car.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A, fearing that a pregnancy would cause the death ofhis wife and the expected child, gave abortive pills tohis wife. He is accused of the crime of intentionalabortion. Can he invoke avoidance of a greater evil

or injury?

2;. The evil sought to be avoided must actuallye&ist. 0f the evil sought to be avoided is merelye&pected or anticipated or may happen in the future,par. of Article 11 is not applicable.

A was driving his car with due diligence. 'uddenly, atruck appeared in front of him. #f he would swerve

his car to the left, he would fall into a precipice, or ifhe would swerve it to the right he would injure apasserby. #s there a crime if he injures thepasserby?

2;. *e was forced to choose between losing his lifeand injuring the passerby. 0t is reasonable thatbetween his life and that of another, it is justified tochoose ones life due to mans nature for self#preservation. 0n this case, all the reuisites foravoidance of a greater evil has been met.

'uppose in the above example, A was driving his carat a very high speed and although he saw the truckapproaching, he did not slacken his speed. Can hestill invoke avoidance of a greater evil or injury?

2;. The greater evil or injury must not be broughtabout by the negligence or imprudence of the actor.

A, with a bolo, was attacking $ who was wounded.$(s son was about to shoot A to defend his fatherwhen C, A(s friend, embraced him and grappled withthe gun. #n the course of the struggle, $(s son gotkilled. Can C claim that he was trying to avoid a

greater evil or injury?

2;. C was not avoiding any evil when he sought todisarm


24/39

That the injury caused or the offense

committed be the necessary conseuence of

the due performance of duty or the lawfule&ercise of such right or office.

DIERENTIATE THIS PARA!RAPH RO& SELDEENSE.

0n this paragraph, it is not necessary that there beunlawful aggression against the person charged withthe performance of a duty or lawful e&ercise of aright or office. 0f there is unlawful aggression, then itis self#defense.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

%wo police officers were ordered to apprehend A, avery dangerous criminal. %hey went to his house andopened the door to his bedroom. %hey saw a personlying down on the bed, sleeping. $ecause they didn(twant to take any chances, they shot the person. #tturned out that the person was not A. Can the two

officers invoke paragraph ?

2;. Although the first reuisite is present becausethe police officers, who were trying to get a wantedcriminal, were acting in the performance of a duty.


25/39

A, a soldier, was ordered by his sergeant to capture$, dead or alive. $ got killed. #t turned out that thesergeant(s orders were personal and was not givenby his superiors. #s A criminally liable?

2;. The accused acted upon the order of a superiorofficer, which he as a military subordinate could notuestion. *e obeyed the orders in good faith without

being aware of their illegality, without any fault ornegligence on his part. *e is not liable because hehad no criminal intent and was not negligent.(+eople of the +hilippines v.


26/39

can be proven that he acted during a lucid interval.The insane, to be e&empt must prove beyondreasonable doubt, that the accused upon committingthe crime, is completely deprived of intelligence,reason or discernment, or deprived of freedom ofwill. A defense of insanity which would only plead amere abnormality of mental faculties is not suffice toe&empt the offender, because consciousness of the

act is not lost. 0t could however be, accepted as amitigating circumstance.

"HAT HAPPENS "HEN IT IS PROVED THAT THEINSANE OR I&+ECILE CO&&ITTED THEELON'

>pon conviction, the insane or imbecile, would beordered confined in a mental hospital or asylum, andwould only be allowed to leave with the permissionof the court. The permission of the court would onlybe granted with the opinion of the /irector of *ealth,

the may do so.

"HAT ARE THE R)LES RE!ARDIN! THE

PRES)&PTION O THE CONTIN)ANCE OINSANIT'

0f the insanity is only occasional, the

presumption of its continuance does not

arise. 0f the defendant had lucid intervals, it is

presumed that the offense was committedin one of them.


27/39

"HAT IS THE +ASIS O PARA!RAPH ;'

Again, the basis of this e&emption is the completeabsence of intelligence.

"HAT IS &EANT + PARA!RAPH 3'

+aragraph ' enunciates that minors over = years and

under 1) years of age must have acted withoutdiscernment. 0f he acted with discernment, he is note&empt from criminal liability, but he will beproceeded against in accordance with Article BF ofthe 8evised +enal Code which is now Article 1=" of+residential /ecree @F'.

"HAT IS DISCERN&ENT'

/iscernment is the mental capacity to understandthe difference between right and wrong including thecapacity to fully appreciate the conseuences of his

unlawful act. $uch capacity may be %nown andshould be determined by ta%ing into consideration allthe facts and circumstances afforded by the records

in each case, the manner the crime was committed,and the conduct of the offender after its commission.

"HO HAS THE +)RDEN TO PROVEDISCERN&ENT'

The phrase unless he acted with discernment3indicates an e&ception, so it is incumbent upon theprosecution to prove that such minor, over = andunder 1) years of age, acted with discernment.

"HAT HAPPENS "HEN THE CO)RT INDS THATTHE &INOR CO&&ITTED THE CRI&E "ITHDISCERN&ENT'

$uch minor will then be proceeded against in

accordance with The Child and Houth elfare Code3(Articles 1B= to 1=" of +residential /ecree @F', asamended

"HAT IS THE +ASIS O PARA!RAPH 3'

This e&empting circumstance is based on thecomplete absence of intelligence.

PARA!RAPH G ACCIDENT

"HAT ARE THE RE)ISITES O ACCIDENT'

A person is performing a lawful act

ith due care

*e causes an injury to another by mere

accident ithout fault or intention of causing it.

"HAT IS AN ACCIDENT'

An accident is something that happens outside thesway of our will, and although it comes aboutthrough some act of our will, lies beyond the boundsof humanly foreseeable conseuences. 0tpresupposes a lac% of intention to commit the wrongdone.

0f the conseuences are plainly foreseeable, it will bea case of negligence.

"HAT IS THE +ASIS O ACCIDENT'

This e&empting circumstance is based on the lac% ofnegligence and intent. >nder this paragraph, the

person does not commit either an intentional orculpable felony.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A attacked $. !hile $ was defending himself against

the unjustified assault, he accidentally hit C whodied. #s $ entitled to the exempting circumstance of

paragraph


28/39

for escape r self#defense in eual combat. (+eople ofthe +hilippines v. ?oreno

"HAT IS THE +ASIS OR IRRESISTA+LEORCE'

This e&empting circumstance is based on thecomplete absence of freedom, an element of

voluntariness.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A band of rebels murdered some American schoolteachers. pon reaching a banana plantation, they

spotted A and striking him with the butt of theirguns, compelled him to bury the bodies of theirvictims. Can A be held criminally liable as anaccomplice to murder?

2;. A is not criminally liable since he acted under

the compulsion of an irresistible force. (>$ v.Caballeros

A(s wife was killed by $. pon learning this, Aimmediately got a gun, sought $, and killed him. Acontends that he was acting under an irresistibleforce caused by the anguish of his wife(s death. #shis contention correct?

2;. The irresistible force can never consist in animpulse or passion, or obfuscation as in this case. 0tmust consist of an e&traneous force coming from athird person.

PARA!RAPH J G )NCONTROLLA+LE EAR

"HAT ARE RE)ISITES O )NCONTROLLA+LEEAR'

4&istence of an uncontrollable fear The fear must be real and imminent

The fear of an injury is greater than or at

least eual to that committed.

DIERENTIATE IRRESISTA+LE ORCE AND)NCONTROLLA+LE EAR.

This paragraph presupposes that a person iscompelled to commit a crime by another by means ofintimidation of or threat unli%e in irresistible force

where the compulsion is by means of force orviolence.

"HAT IS THE NAT)RE O THE)NCONTROLLA+LE EAR SO THAT IT CAN +E)SED AS A VALID DEENSE'

0t should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable

fear for ones life or limb and should not bespeculative, fanciful, or remote fear.

A threat of future injury is not enough. Thecompulsion must be of such character as to leave noopportunity to the accused for escape or self#defense

in eual combat.

"HAT IS THE +ASIS O )NCONTROLLA+LEEAR'

This e&empting circumstance is based on thecomplete absence of freedom.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A and $ were compelled under fear of death toswear allegiance to the >atipunan whose purposewas to overthrow the government by force of arms.Can A and $ be held liable for rebellion?

2;. They joined the rebels under the impulse of an

uncontrollable fear of an eual or greater injury.

A threatened to burn the house of $ should he notkill his own father. $ killed his father for fear that Amight burn his house. #s $ exempt from criminalliability?

2;. < is not e&empt from criminal liability since thecivil with which he was threatened was much less

than that of %illing his father.

PARA!RAPH K G PREVENTED + INS)PERA+LECA)SE

"HAT ARE THE RE)SITES O INS)PERA+LECA)SE'

That an act is reuired by law to be done.

That a person fails to perform such act.

That his failure to perform such act was due

to some lawful or insuperable cause.

"HAT IS THE +ASIS OR INS)PERA+LECA)SE'

The basis for this e&empting circumstance is that theaccused acts without intent, the third condition ofvoluntariness in intentional felonies.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A confessed to a priest that he and several otherpersons were in conspiracy against the government.nder Article 11=, a 0ilipino citi/en who knows of aconspiracy must report the same. #f the priest doesnot disclose the information, is he criminally liable?

2;. >nder the law the priest cannot be compelled toreveal any information which he came to %now byreason of the confession made to him in hisprofessional capacity.

nder the law, the arrested person must bedelivered to the nearest judicial authority at most

within -= hours 8Article 1;9, otherwise the publicofficer will be guilty of arbitrary detention. A, themunicipal president detained the offended party for- days because to take him to the nearest judicialauthority re&uired a journey for - days by boat asthere was no other means of transportation. #s A

guilty of arbitrary detention?

"B


29/39

2;. The distance which reuired a journey for ' dayswas considered an insuperable cause. A is e&emptfrom criminal liability. (>$ v. Lincentillo

A+SOL)TOR CA)SES

"HAT ARE A+SOL)TOR CA)SES'

Absolutory causes are those where the actcommitted is a crime but for reasons of public policyand sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

"HAT ARE THE A+SOL)TOR CA)SES IN THEREVISED PENAL CODE'

$pontaneous desistance during attempted

stage (Article @ and no crime underanother provision of the Code or other penallaw is committed.

?ight felony is only attempted or frustrated,

and is not against persons or property.(Article 5

The accessory is a relative to the principal

(Article "F ?egal grounds for arbitrary detention

(Article 1" ?egal grounds for trespass (Article "BF,

paragraph ' The crime of theft, swindling or malicious

mischief is committed against a relative(Article ''"

hen only slight or less serious physical

injuries are inflicted by the person whosurprised his spouse or daughter in the actof se&ual intercourse with another person(Article "5

arriage of the offender with the offended

party when the crime committed is rape,abduction, seduction, or acts oflasciviousness (Article '

0nstigation

"HAT IS INSTI!ATION'

0nstigation happens when a public officer or a privatedetective induces an innocent person to commit acrime and would arrest him upon or after thecommission.

DISTIN!)ISH INSTI!ATION RO&

ENTRAP&ENT.

INSTI!ATIONENTRAP&ENT

The instigator practically induces the would#beays and means are resorted to for the

accused into committing an offense and himselfpurpose of trapping and capturing the

lawbrea%er.becomes a co#principal.

The law enforcer conceives the commission of

The means originates from the mind of the

the crime and suggests to the accused whocriminal, the idea and resolve to commit the

adopts the idea and carries it into e&ecution.crime comes from him

Absolutory cause, the accused must be acuitted2o bar to the prosecution and conviction of

the

lawbrea%er.

"HO &A +E !)ILT O INSTI!ATION'

;nly public officers or private detectives. 0f the one

who made the instigation is a private individual, notperforming a public function, both he and the oneinduced are criminally liable, the former as principalby inducement and the latter as principal by directparticipation.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

An agent of the law posed as private individual and

went to A and induced him to look for a place wherehe could smoke opium. %he agent went to A - timesto convince him. $ecause of the agent(s insistence, Amade efforts to look for a place where they couldsmoke opium. After doing so, the agent arrested A.

#s A criminally liable?

2;. A was instigated to commit the crime of smo%ingopium. (>$ v. +helps

A detective represented himself as a private

individual who was in need of money. He befriendeda well)known thief who told him there was a waythey could get money. %he detective asked the thiefhow and the latter told him that they were going tobreak into the house of a rich man to steal jewels.

After stealing the jewels, the detective arrested thethief. #s the thief criminally liable?

H4$. There was entrapment. The original design ofcommitting the crime was formed by the thiefindependently of the agent.

ART. 13 &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES. Te

2o$$o:%n0 a#e m%t%0at%n0 c%#c9mstances

1. Tose ment%oned %n te #eced%n0 cate#,:en a$$ te #eF9%s%tes necessa#7 to 9st%27 teact o# to e?emt 2#om c#%m%na$ $%a4%$%t7 %n te#esect%/e cases a#e not attendant.

;. Tat te o22ende# %s 9nde# e%0teen 7ea#s o2a0e o# o/e# se/ent7 7ea#s. In te case o2 tem%no#, e sa$$ 4e #oceeded a0a%nst %nacco#dance :%t te #o/%s%ons o2 a#t%c$e 8M.

3. Tat te o22ende# ad no %ntent%on to comm%tso 0#a/e a :#on0 as tat comm%tted.

. Tat s922%c%ent #o/ocat%on o# t#eat on tea#t o2 te o22ended a#t7 %mmed%ate$7#eceded te act.

"=


30/39


31/39

circumstance. !ill the circumstances offset eachother?

2;. The aggravating circumstance of nighttimecannot offset the privileged mitigating circumstanceof minority.

PARA!RAPH 1 G INCO&PLETE )STIIN! AND

E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES"HICH CIRC)&STANCES DOES PARA!RAPH 1REER TO'

The justifying (Article 11 and e&empting (Article 1"

circumstances.

HO" DOES THIS PARA!RAPH APPL TO THETHREE CLASSES O DEENSES'

0n self#defense, defense of relatives and defense of

stranger, unlawful aggression must be present, itbeing an indispensable reuisite. hat is absent arethe two other reuisites.

*owever if two of the three are present (one ofwhich must be unlawful aggression, such would be aprivileged mitigating circumstance in accordancewith Article @= of the 8evised +enal Code, and will

not fall under this paragraph.

DOES THIS PARA!RAPH APPL TO PARA!RAPH O ARTICLE 1;'

2;. >nder Article 1", paragraph ', there are four

reuisites for the e&empting circumstance ofaccident. 6irst, a person must be performing a lawfulact. $econd, such must be done with due care.Third, an injury was caused to another by mereaccident. 6ourth, there is no fault or intention of

causing such injury.

0f the second reuisite and the first part of the fourthreuisite are absent, the case will fall under Article'@), felonies by negligence or imprudence. Theeffect would be li%e a mitigating circumstance sincesaid article states that the penalty will be lower thanif the felony was committed intentionally.

0f the first reuisite and the second part of the fourthreuisite are absent, it will be an intentional felony,the second and third reuisite will no longer apply.

0??>$T8AT0;2:

A, who was very drunk, attacked $ who was teasing

him. $ defended himself by getting a knife which heused to stab A repeatedly. #s he entitled to the

justifying circumstance of self)defense?

2;. There is in this case incomplete self#defense.The deceased was in a state of drun%enness and sothe necessity of the means used to repel theaggression is clearly not reasonable. Also, < gavesufficient provocation. $o there is only a mitigatingcircumstance, which is in this case is paragraph 1 ofArticle 1'.

A and $ were ordered to capture C, a dangerouscriminal, dead or alive. %hey went to his house, andfinding a person lying down in the bed in C(s room,shot him. #t turned out to be another person. A and$ contend that their act was justified since they werein the performance of a duty. $ut the court foundout that the second re&uisite for the justifying

circumstance of performance of duty was lacking. #sArticle 1- paragraph 1 applicable in this case?

2;. Although there is an incomplete justifyingcircumstance, ma%ing the said circumstancemitigating, Article @= and not Article 1', paragraph 1

should be applied. The former article states that amajority of such conditions to ma%e an act justifyingor e&empting will merit a penalty lower by one ortwo degrees. $ince there are only two reuisites forthe justifying circumstance of performance of duty,the presence of one reuisite is already a majority.

There is therefore a privileged mitigatingcircumstance (Article @= in this case, not anordinary mitigating circumstance (Article 1',

paragraph 1. The same principle applies to thee&empting circumstance of uncontrollable fear whichalso has only " reuisites.

A, a sergeant in the army, had a grudge against $.

He therefore ordered C, his subordinate to kill $. Ccomplied. C now contends that his act is justifiedsince he was just obeying an order. #s his contentioncorrect?

2;. The other reuisites in order the obedience to an

order issued for some lawful purpose is lac%ing inthis case. At most, C is entitled to the mitigatingcircumstance of Article 1', paragraph 1. (+eople ofthe +hilippines v.


32/39

hen the offender is over = years but under

1) years of age and acted with discernment(in which case, Article @B applies

hen the offender is 1) years or over but

under 1B years of age (in which case,Article @B applies

hen the offender is over 5F years of age.

I IT IS PROVED THAT THE &INOR CO&&ITTED

A CRI&E, HO" "O)LD HE +E PROCEEDEDA!AINST'

Through Article 1=" of the +/ @F' which is applied inlieu of Article BF of the 8evised +enal Code. 0nsteadof pronouncing a judgment of conviction, the court,upon application of the youthful offender and if itfinds that the best interest of the public as well asthat of the offender will be served thereby, maysuspend all further proceedings. $uch minor shallthen be committed to the custody or care of the/$/, or to any training institution operated by thegovernment or any responsible person. This will go

on until he shall have reached "1 years of age, or fora shorter period as the court may deem proper afterconsidering the reports and recommendation of thedepartment, institution or person under whose carehe has been committed.

"HAT IS THE EECT O THIS &ITI!ATIN!

CIRC)&STANCE'

0t depends on the age of the accused.

0f the accused is over = years and under 1)

years of age and it was proven that heacted with discernment, Article @B willapply. The penalty will be lowered by "

degrees. 6or e&ample, in this crime of

homicide which is punishable by reclusiontemporal, the penalty two degrees lowerwould be prision correccional.

0f the accused is over 1) years or over but

under 1B years of age, Article @B will alsoapply and the penalty will be lowered by 1degree. 0n the same e&ample, it would be

prision mayor, which is 1 degree lower thanreclusion temporal.

0f the accused is over 5F years of age, this

paragraph will apply, and the penalty will belowered by one period, provided there is noaggravating circumstance, which is in thiscase, reclusion temporal minimum.

THEREORE, "HAT ARE THE STA!ES ORESPONSI+ILIT'

$tages of 8esponsibility: Absolute irresponsibility: nine (= years and

below Conditional responsibility: between nine (=

and fifteen (1) years 6ull responsibility: eighteen (1B or over to

seventy (5F

itigated responsibility: over nine (= and

under fifteen (1), if acting with

discernment, fifteen (1) or over but lessthan eighteen (1B, and over seventy (5Fyears of age

A, CO&&ITTED A CRI&E "HEN HE "AS 1JEAR O A!E. +)T THE TRIAL STARTED "HEN

HE "AS ALREAD 1. CAN HE STILL +ENEITRO& PARA!RAPH ;'

H4$. 0t is the age of the accused at the time of thecommission of the crime which should be determinedand not at the time of the trial. (+eople of the+hilippines v. +la-a"HAT IS THE DIERENCE +ET"EEN A CRI&ECO&&ITTED + A &INOR AND THAT + APERSON OVER KM EARS OLD, IN ACCORDENCE"ITH PARA!RAPH ;'

A crime committed by a minor is specifically coveredin Article @B which provides for a mitigating

circumstance. Article @B does not cover crimes

committed by a person over 5F years of age.

PARA!RAPH 3 G NO INTENTION TO CO&&IT SO!RAVE A "RON!

"HAT IS THE R)LE OR THE APPLICATION OTHIS PARA!RAPH'

The facts proven must show that there is a notableand evident disproportion between the meansemployed to e&ecute the criminal act and itsconseuences. (>$ v. 8eyes

HO" DO O) SHO)" THAT THE ACC)SED DIDNOT INTENT THE "RON! CO&&ITTED'

0ntention, being an internal act, must be judged bythe circumstance surrounding the case, li%e theweapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury

inflicted, the manner it was inflicted, and the effectsof the injury committed.

&A THE LAC* O INTEN

utopia crim reviewer

Documents